PERMFILE117436 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

eh • ESPEY, HUSTON b ASSOCIATES, INC. fill slopes have been modeled as one of three types: Material I, Material II, and Material III, corresponding to refuse fill, existing soil, and bedrock, respectively. Bag samples of refuse fill material have been laboratory tested in direct sheaz by others, and these test results were used directly in the analysis for Material I (see Fig. 13.3.1). The granular material comprising most of the existing soil on site has been sampled and tested in direct sheaz by others in the laboratory. A silty clay was also tested in direct sheaz by others in the laboratory. The silty clay was not observed to be continuous or dominant in the soil profile during the EH&A field investigation during May 1980, although lenses of clay were found. Average strength parameters in the existing soil are assumed to be better approximated by those of the granular material than by those of the silty clay. The EH&A field investigation included standard penetration tests on the • granulaz material in situ. These tests indicated a minimum friction angle of about 33 degrees was appropriate for the existing soil and this angle with a zero cohesion intercept was used in the analysis for Material II. Material III was chazacterized by a friction angle of 35 degrees and a cohesion intercept of 5,000 psf. 13.3.3.4 Results of Analysis The Phase I and Final Refuse Sections were each analyzed for long term stability using the SSTABl program and the input assumptions described above. The program seazched for a minimum factor of safety for a circulaz failure surface for each section. In addition, a trial wedge was also analyzed for the final section. This wedge corresponded roughly to a wedge geometry found to be critical by others for r a similaz slope configuration. The calculated factors of safety for static conditions are as follows: 13-Sa